CFB Playoff Rankings

Generally speaking professional leagues have leaned toward taking judgement out of the equation both during games and in the playoffs, which is ironic given that the NCAA tried to put it back in. It just works better. As long as you have a contingency for the unexpected ( wild card or at large invite ).

Which is why I'd be ok with Champions as long as there are 2 at large bids to account for strange situations like injuries or fluke losses. Think the conferences, though fluid, are strong enough that it works and the season still counts for something. This would eliminate the bias toward the 5 and the human element as much as possible. Non Conference games will still have some significance. I don't mind a ranked non 5 champion in the 8 either as that is part of the contingency you have to live with. By the end of next week UH could be top 12 anyway and look worthy. I think it makes sense. And if the teams are practicing anyway, who cares about their commitment to either academics or otherwise.

 

It's fair to have the highest-ranked conference champion from Group of Five (American, Mountain West, MAC, Sun Belt, & Conference USA). Either way, they will end up being mainly the #8 seed just like the #16 seed in the NCAA Basketball Tournament. Last Year, Boise State made it to the New Year's Six and won the Fiesta Bowl.

 

The bias against the non-P5 to me is funny.

In the history of the BCS/CFBPO format these are the participants from the current and former G5.

_________

2006:
Boise vs Oklahoma (W, 43-32)

2007:
Hawaii vs Georgia (L, 41-10)

2008:
Utah vs Alabama (W, 31-17)
Cincinnati vs VaTech (L, 20-7)

2009:
Boise vs TCU (17-10)
Cincinnati vs Florida (L, 24-51)

2010:
TCU vs Wisconsin (W, 21-19)
UConn vs Oklahoma (L, 48-20)

2012:
NIU vs Florida State (L, 10-31)

2013:
UCF vs Baylor (W, 52-42)

2014:
Boise State vs Arizona (W, 38-30)
_____________


In total, these games are just as competitive and compelling as most P5 vs P5 matchups. There's really no valid reason to exclude the highest ranked G5 team (or, IMO, the AAC and MWC champs) other than hubris, greed, and/or cowardice.

 

Those major conference teams often come out uninspired in those games (a major reason I dislike bowl games) - Bama/Utah the biggest example given the eyeball test.

And fine, if your argument is concrete I would argue that a putting a program from a major conference in against those other teams would have resulted in a better game. If a Boise State team plays a tough non-conference and goes undefeated and winds up in a top 8 -- no worries.

But a 19th ranked UH team? No, absolutely not, man. If they were undefeated and this was one of the years they had OU or Tech on the schedule? Bring it. That isn't the case this year, so a spot reserved for a team in UH's spot right now is a bad idea to me. Let the best, proven teams in. Small schools that got into BCS games in the past earned it.

 

TCU had their chance last year - they could have not choked against Baylor.

Everybody believes it's our absolute mission to find THE best team in the nation. I want the team who earns it. You can be the best team and blow a game you should win in the regular season - I say I don't care if you get your shot at a National Championship in this case. A difference in points of view.

Non-Power 5 schools have a shot too - schedule some good non-conference games. If you don't do that, I'm not that sympathetic either.

 

I guess you're talking about importance to the fans? I'm talking about importance to the team's goal of winning a championship. Yeah, the NFL regular season is more important than the NBA or MLB's, but I like college football's history of regular season games REALLY counting.

 

They count, but unfortunately only to an arbitrary amount decided by some combination of TV executives, Bowl committees, and media members.

There's really no argument to be had here. College football's governance system sucks total ass.

 

So how did OSU earn it by choking to a terrible VaTech at home? Or Alabama earn it, losing to Ole Miss? Or Oregon losing to Arizona at home. If anything, TCU had the absolute best loss out of those three.

You asked if there's ever been an argument for the 5th team - I'd suggest TCU did as much or more than any of the other teams and could easily have have made an argument that they should have been in it. In fact, it was very controversial that they weren't.

 

My thinking (then) was that the committee repeatedly made a point to state that approximately 1/5th of their equation would be based on whether a team won their conference championship. The Big 12 seemed to shoot themselves in the foot by declaring co-champs/no champ.

 

Most definitely, and they admitted as much.

I *still* think TCU was the best team in the country last year.

 

TCU lost to a much better team than OSU and lost by 3 points after some questionable calls by refs on the road.

They earned it.

It just so happened that there were 6 teams last year that were good enough and 4 spots.

In my biased opinion, last year's TCU team could have won it all had we had the chance. We lost and we didn't so who knows...but to say we didn't earn it (or Baylor for that matter) is a stretch.

 

Sagarin Strength of Schedule – CFP Top 25
*SOS ranking in parentheses.

1. Clemson (47)
2. Alabama (5)
3. Oklahoma (20)
4. Iowa (62)
5. Michigan State (53)
6. Notre Dame (19)
7. Baylor (58)
8. Ohio State (61)
9. Stanford (16)
10. Michigan (42)
11. Oklahoma State (37)
12. Florida (46)
13. Florida State (57)
14. North Carolina (63)
15. Navy (75)
16. Northwestern (44)
17. Oregon (25)
18. Ole Miss (22)
19. TCU (36)
20. Washington State (49)
21. Mississippi State (28)
22. UCLA (33)
23. Utah (26)
24. Toledo (86)
25. Temple (85)

Sagarin Strength of Schedule – Overall Top 25

1. Iowa State
2. Kansas
3. Texas
4. Maryland
5. Alabama
6. Arkansas
7. California
8. LSU
9. USC
10. Georgia Tech
11. Auburn
12. Oregon State
13. South Carolina
14. Virginia
15. Texas Tech
16. Stanford
17. Arizona State
18. Vanderbilt
19. Notre Dame
20. Oklahoma
21. Washington
22. Ole Miss
23. Pittsburgh
24. Miami (FL)
25. Oregon

 

I'll repeat my stance. As a team and school, you control your own destiny by the schools you schedule and winning games. I only remember a couple times in my time of watching when there were three teams (I believe they were both undefeated Auburn teams who were left out of the National Championship) who I felt were victims of the format who were entitled to a shot. Pretty much, my rule is you lose to a team in the regular season you should have beat, I'm not crying for you if you don't get your chance. That includes Ohio State, Ole Miss - anybody. I argued Notre Dame should have been in the final playoff if they beat Stanford - but I wouldn't have cried for them if they didn't.

Because there have been times when I could undoubtedly agree there were 3 entitled teams, I've advocated for a 4 team playoff for more than 8 years. Actually, I advocated a 5 team. 3 BCS & 2 non-BCS (at the time, there was BCS). The 2 best non-BCS teams face off to then join the other other 3 in the semifinals.

NOW, do I think there are more than 4 teams that could string together a few upsets in a postseason & win the "playoffs tournament"? Yeah! There are probably more than 8. Good teams are surprised by less accomplished teams every weekend. Does this mean that every team that could potentially win this "playoffs tournament" is entitled to a shot? F no! I don't like marginalizing regular season games' value like the NFL does. You know what? To be really fair, let's make each round of this "playoffs tournament" a best of 7! Get blown out & embarrassed twice in a series and still advance like the Rockets-Clippers series. Come on, man! Keep the integrity!! Don't like it? Stick with the NFL and your fantasy football. How much d*mn time of your weekends can you devote to watching football anyway?

There is not going to be a perfect number for your "playoffs tournament". 4 today? Everyone will b*ch we need 8! Expand it to 8? That 9th team is just as deserving as teams 7-8!!!! It's a slippery slope. My overall point is - team #5 might be more deserving than team #4. But - as far as I know - in history, there have never been more than 3 teams entitled to a shot. To me, it's acceptable if a #4 team with a bad loss to Virginia Tech wins it all one year if it means we don't keep an undefeated #3 Auburn left out. So, 4-5 is the number I will fight in the streets for! haha

 

I have no problem with your stance oakdogg. I get your perspective and it was the system we all grew up on. I just want you to ponder my perspective, which might be a little different than most, but still liking the new system. I watch probably more college football than any national tv analyst or coach. Only major degens and handicappers watch football the way I do. In my opinion, there is so much variation and it's great. There are just so many teams (128 in D1) that growing up on the old system, pre expansion of cable tv, you really don't pay attention to like 90% of the teams out there. And 12-13 games will never help you draw a complete picture of a team in relation to another when there are 128 teams. So to me, no system will ever be completely fair. I get what you're saying, but it's also not fair to say "every game matters" when that never was the case. You only bring up the undefeated scenarios, but the old system never could objectively find the correct #2 team when there were so many times multiple 1-loss teams existed. And often the case, it's the attention getting team that gets the most favor. BCS was even based on some methods like scoring differential that I guess now has evolved into game control. I don't think any system can completely figure out what's the best 1-loss team.

So we get into a situation like last year where you feel like the regular season was cheapened by Ohio State's inclusion. But did you watch every game? Did you feel that way during the regular season? That was a bad loss, but is there really an objective measure to show that Ohio State was a worse team than Baylor, TCU, Alabama, Oregon, or FSU? To me, there isn't. I like 4 teams. The thing is, all observers could tell last year that FSU was fraudulent, but they were the magical "undefeated." But when there are 128 teams dude, undefeated through 12 games is so dependent upon who you play as much as how you play.

You earlier said that FSU would lose on the old system too, but then you are valuing FSU being beaten by a better team without regard to whether there are even better teams out there. You would have been fine with a Bama FSU or Oregon FSU final, but does it carry no value to you that Ohio State proved on the field last year to be better than both of those teams? That was a great display of football? Anyhow, I'm ranting and up way too late. I get what you're saying. To me, it's not just about more football, but that more football is okay for college because there are so many teams, unlike other examples you brought up.

 

Alabama is going to steamroll Michigan State. Clemson-Oklahoma should be a great game.

Also...Oklahoma dropped from 3 to 4 because an Alabama-Oklahoma National Championship would get the best ratings. #Conspiracy

 

I don't think they wanted to put Bama at a disadvantage but I can't knock MSU being ahead of OU.

 

I think you can. Looking at the factors the committee are supposed considers, there was no reason for Michigan State to jump OU.